Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:42 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Doug.

On 11-07-2010 16:03, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2010 08:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> If I really need to go to the council with every change, considering
>>> it must be debated on the ML for at least X number of days prior to
>>> going to the council, I'd more likely just remove MythTV from the tree
>>> and maintain it in an overlay. I don't invest a lot of time in the
>>> MythTV ebuilds, but they work for a large majority of people. And when
>>> a new version comes out it requires some retooling and it just works
>>> for everyone.
>>>
>>
>> When someone proposes this I'll let you know. What's under discussion is
>> allowing removals to the public API of eclasses by following a
>> documented process (that doesn't involve council approval).
>>
>>> So basically, you guys decide.. am I pulling them out of the tree or
>>> am I leaving them in?
>>>
>>
>> If you decided to drop maintenance of MythTV in main tree, wouldn't it
>> be a better service to users to try and find a new maintainer (who would
>> possibly merge stuff from your overlay)?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
>>
>>
> 
> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
> instead to promote positive development.

There seems to be some misunderstanding going on as we (Gentoo) haven't
approved (in prior councils terms or in the current one which hopes to
have its first meeting in the coming week or the following) any rules
about eclass changes having to be discussed or approved by the council.

> Someone along the years the council lost its way and has felt that it
> needs to stick its fingers into places that it really doesn't belong.
> Its really become like the upper management at a large company that
> slows its developers down, instead of helping make them more
> efficient.

About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to
what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion,
the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate
discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there
was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=G61A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Replies:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Doug Goldstein
References:
RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Matti Bickel
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Petteri Räty
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Brian Harring
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Doug Goldstein
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Petteri Räty
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Doug Goldstein
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Next by thread:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Previous by date:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Next by date:
Re: [bugzilla-daemon@g.o: [Bug 322157] [mail-filter/procmail] new ebuild + autocreate maildirs]


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.